ORLANDO, Fla.  A federal judge temporarily blocked Floridas new law that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving the benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitutions ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

In locale after locale, common sense laws are being passed and then being overturned or blocked by the effing federal judiciary. Time for the states to tell district court judges to shove it. Past time for congress to start impeachment proceedings against these usurping black robed swine.

The problem is too much welfare; not too few restrictions on welfare recipients. I think the decision was a good one. As with all federal government regulations, this one opened the door to even more intrusiveness against all citizens.

We must work to reduce welfare in this country -- not just accept it and try to make the recipients' lives miserable to compensate.

4
posted on 10/24/2011 3:21:56 PM PDT
by BfloGuy
(Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas.)

Interesting, so a judge considers drug testing for welfare to be a case of illegal search and seizure.

Would the judge be so kind to rule on the TSA who won’t let people get on a privately owned aircraft with drugs. The TSA assumes I am a criminal, then denies me my 2nd Amendment Rights by violating my 4th and 5th. If I were to fly from Dallas to Houston, TSA would still want to do a search without Probable Cause and without a warrant, a clear violation of the 10th and 14th Amendments.

My Rights to engage in contracts with a private company is routinely violated by the FedGov while there is yet no claim in the Constitution where a drug addict has free access to my wallet.

“A federal judge temporarily blocked Floridas new law that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving the benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitutions ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.”

You are getting money from taxpayers for NOTHING, and we cant demand that you be clean before you do?!?!?!

%#%^#&*@ trailer trash judge!

18
posted on 10/24/2011 3:35:43 PM PDT
by VanDeKoik
(1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)

I think the testing was a good idea. I believe that initially, the testing cost ... but the study said that it cost less than the money saved to the recipients. They didn’t have any way to measure how many people just didn’t apply BECAUSE of the testing requirement and there were some that, for some reason, hadn’t been measured.

When a recipient takes the dollars and has a drug habit, it has a ripple effect. They aren’t responsible with the money. Their kids are usually running around being “raised” by the community. If they get foodstamps, they are also selling them for drugs...and hitting up food pantries, emptying THOSE out.

And you are enabling all of that.

Maybe there should be a compassion clause, though, where if someone needs the help and has an addiction...they can claim it and comply with treatment.

“In locale after locale, common sense laws are being passed and then being overturned or blocked by the effing federal judiciary. Time for the states to tell district court judges to shove it. Past time for congress to start impeachment proceedings against these usurping black robed swine.”

It is time for the states to call a Constitutional convention to add amendments limiting the power of the federal judiciary and the federal bureaucracy over the states. In addition there should be no laws passed by Congress requiring states to tax its citizens to support or supplement federal programs.

20
posted on 10/24/2011 3:36:44 PM PDT
by Soul of the South
(When times are tough the tough get going.)

You would not believe the number of people who sell their food stamps at 50 cents to a dollar to subsidized their alcohol and drug habits. Sell their prescription drugs to purchase stronger drugs. And finally due to recent events, collect welfare while joining the Occupy crowd to get free food and shelter (tents are better than what they had).

Federal judges have also acknowledged the freedom of the IRS to seize property without judicial hearings (i.e. due process). Federal judges also allow the EPA to restrict the use of private property and assess fines on activities involving private use of private property.

22
posted on 10/24/2011 3:39:18 PM PDT
by Soul of the South
(When times are tough the tough get going.)

Newt had some good ideas about reigning in these renegade, anti American judges who are ruling from the bench. Much like zero is doing by passing everything by executive order and by passing congress purposely

You would not believe the number of people who sell their food stamps at 50 cents to a dollar to subsidized their alcohol and drug habits.

I would. I have friends and family who have been on some form of government assistance at various times, so I tell you this first hand. They don't have money to pay their electric bill or truck payment, but they have money for smokes, pot, and tats. But we can't drug test them?

You would not believe the number of people who sell their food stamps at 50 cents to a dollar to subsidized their alcohol and drug habits.

I would. I have friends and family who have been on some form of government assistance at various times, so I tell you this first hand. They don't have money to pay their electric bill or truck payment, but they have money for smokes, pot, and tats. But we can't drug test them?

So if someone is receiving medical care from the state (Medicare, Medicaid, VA etc.), the government is able to blood test them for say, cholesterol, and require them to change their diet or take certain meds in order to continue to receive care?

Just wondering if there are any limits on what’s reasonable in what they can require you to submit to.

36
posted on 10/24/2011 4:15:55 PM PDT
by mgstarr
("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986 states that medical care cannot be withheld for any reason. Just in case you were "wondering".

The federal government could choose not to reimburse the hospital for treating any patient with high cholesterol, but the hospital would still have to treat them. I'd like to see what happens to the legislator who proposes such a law.

I once attended a meeting at a drug testing facility who tested for various companies.

I asked the corporate drone who held the meeting and worked for the testing facility if their own employees who conducted the tests, were also randomly drug tested. He stated: "No, our people are not in a position to hurt anyone like a truck driver or machinist". I reminded this guy, his employees had peoples lives, reputations and careers in their hands, and he started doing the big chicken.

The entire meeting melted down after that...

Funny how the lowly Home Depot employee is randomly drug tested, yet cops, judges, congress, teachers, city councils, mayors, and those in federal/government agencies are not randomly tested.

44
posted on 10/24/2011 4:40:33 PM PDT
by dragnet2
(Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)

If a Constitutional convention is called then everything, including the 2nd amendment, is on the table for change or elimination. I’d rather a single amendment be added to change the current cluster that the black robed, usurping swine are causing. I could see a bunch of RINOs and dems getting together to eliminate the 2nd amendment in order to “compromise” on some other nonevent.

Very well said. There are so many scams going on right now by people in this country taking advantage of the system it would make your head spin. They are the cattle sucking off of the teat of the FEDS and they vote for more and more “assistance”. Bottom line - currently there are too many have not's compared with tax paying citizens. There are many reasons for this, not enough jobs (a whole other discussion) insane immigration policy, corrupt corporations, corrupt politicians, and trade policies that do not benefit the US, etc., etc.

46
posted on 10/24/2011 4:52:42 PM PDT
by khnyny
(Our government has become Hal in "2001 A Space Odyssey")

“unlawful search AND seizure” not “unlawful search AND/OR seizure”. If the unlawful search begets the seizure, it is unconstitutional. If the seizure is not propmpted from an unlawful search, everything is okay-dokey.

"So are there any limits IYHO on whats reasonable in what the Feds can require you to submit to if you receive a state benefit?"

Sure there are limits. But don't you think drug testing to receive welfare is reasonable?

I mean, the private sector does drug testing all the time. They also do criminal background checks on potential employees. They also track employees on GPS, monitor their telephone and Internet usage, and hold them responsible for behavior off the job.

I think if the government is going to give thousands of dollars to someone, it's not out of line to ask them to pee in a cup to keep the money away from drug users.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.